PI4K inhibitor

Procedure until the first time XG p =Gwa , and reject H(1) ,:::H(G{1) . g 1 (g)Simulation Studywu dg *Bernoulli(1{p)yu dg *Bernoulli(1{p)with p very close to 1 to allow for the selection of a very small subgroups of genes as covariates in the two regressions. A summary of the model is given in the lower part of Figure 1.Bayesian Multiplicity ControlPosterior inference for the proposed model is carried out using MCMC simulations by a Gibbs sampling scheme, iterating from the complete set of full conditionals reported in the appendix. Since the analysis deals with high throughput gene expression data and our final aim is that of selecting interesting genes [17] multiple comparison problems arise. A useful generalization of frequentist Type-I error rates to multiple hypothesis testing is the false discovery rate (FDR) introduced in Benjamini and Hochberg [18], and reviewed in a Bayesian framework by Storey [19], [20]. Let dg denote the indicator for gene g being differentially expressed under two biological conditions of interest (in our case we will be facing two different indicators dg1 and dg2 whether the comparison is ER+ vs TN or HER2+ vs TN). H0g : dg 0; H1g : dg 1:We perform a small simulation study and generate data in a way that the last 50 (out of 1,000) genes show joint differential behaviour in copy number and RNA expression. We firstly generated two matrices for gene expression (ygt ) and copy number log2 ratios (wbt ) , respectively of dimensions G|T and B|T, with 1315463 B 2000 probes, G 1000 genes (exactly two probes per gene) and T 50 samples. The clinical covariate xt is set to be 1 for the first 10 patients and 0 for the remaining 40 patients. Sample and gene effects were generated from theX corresponding at 0 and priors in the model, at *N(0,s2 ) subject to a mg *N(hm ,s2 ) . Observed log2 ratios and expression values were m sampled from two Gaussian distributions, respectively centred at at zmg and 0. To induce differential joint behaviour for the last 50 genes, we did the Hesperidin chemical information following: for RNA expression, we generated ygt *U({10,0) for g[f950,:::,1000g and t[f1,:::,10g; for copy number, we generated wbt *U({2,0) for b[f1900,:::,2000g and t[f1,:::,10g; The second simulation study generates data from the proposed mixture model. We started from setting ldgyw to be 2 for the first 50 genes and 0 for the remaining 950. and generated the latent SMER 28 web scores 3 1 from the corresponding priors in the model, bb *N( , ) for 4 16 b [ f1,2,:::,1999g, s{2 *G(5,1), z1 *N(0,1) and a 1 1 zb *N(bb{1 zb{1 , ) for b [ f2,3,:::,2000g, cdgw *N(1, ) for 4 9 1 w *N(0, g [ f1,2,:::,100g and cdg ) for g [ f101,:::,1000g, 400 zbt *N(zb zxt cdgw ) for b [ f1,2,:::,2000g and t [ f1,2,:::,50g, P 4 1 1 b[g zbt zw , bdgy *N( , ) and bdgy *N(0, ), randomly gt mg 5 100 100 with proportions respectively 30 and 70 , ag *N(0,1) for g[f1,2,:::,1000g and zy *N(ag zxt bdgy zldgyw zw ,1) . Once the gt gt latent scores are generated, using (1 and 2), we generate geneLet dg denote an indicator for rejecting the g-th comparison and XG D d denote the number of rejections; it is defined g 1 gG X gFDR(1{dg )dg =DBayesian Models and Integration Genomic Platformsexpression and CNA measurements, setting the hyperparameters as follows: wbz={N N Nyw y rg P(dg 1,dg {1Dwb(g)t ,ygt ) yw y rg P(dg 1,dg 1Dwb(g)t ,ygt ) yw rg P(dg 1Dwb(g)t ,ygt )+2 and n2 b1 ,b [ f1,2,:::,2000g;z={ yg +10 and s2 1, gg [ f1,2,:::,1000g:In both cases roughly 2000 iterations were needed for c.Procedure until the first time XG p =Gwa , and reject H(1) ,:::H(G{1) . g 1 (g)Simulation Studywu dg *Bernoulli(1{p)yu dg *Bernoulli(1{p)with p very close to 1 to allow for the selection of a very small subgroups of genes as covariates in the two regressions. A summary of the model is given in the lower part of Figure 1.Bayesian Multiplicity ControlPosterior inference for the proposed model is carried out using MCMC simulations by a Gibbs sampling scheme, iterating from the complete set of full conditionals reported in the appendix. Since the analysis deals with high throughput gene expression data and our final aim is that of selecting interesting genes [17] multiple comparison problems arise. A useful generalization of frequentist Type-I error rates to multiple hypothesis testing is the false discovery rate (FDR) introduced in Benjamini and Hochberg [18], and reviewed in a Bayesian framework by Storey [19], [20]. Let dg denote the indicator for gene g being differentially expressed under two biological conditions of interest (in our case we will be facing two different indicators dg1 and dg2 whether the comparison is ER+ vs TN or HER2+ vs TN). H0g : dg 0; H1g : dg 1:We perform a small simulation study and generate data in a way that the last 50 (out of 1,000) genes show joint differential behaviour in copy number and RNA expression. We firstly generated two matrices for gene expression (ygt ) and copy number log2 ratios (wbt ) , respectively of dimensions G|T and B|T, with 1315463 B 2000 probes, G 1000 genes (exactly two probes per gene) and T 50 samples. The clinical covariate xt is set to be 1 for the first 10 patients and 0 for the remaining 40 patients. Sample and gene effects were generated from theX corresponding at 0 and priors in the model, at *N(0,s2 ) subject to a mg *N(hm ,s2 ) . Observed log2 ratios and expression values were m sampled from two Gaussian distributions, respectively centred at at zmg and 0. To induce differential joint behaviour for the last 50 genes, we did the following: for RNA expression, we generated ygt *U({10,0) for g[f950,:::,1000g and t[f1,:::,10g; for copy number, we generated wbt *U({2,0) for b[f1900,:::,2000g and t[f1,:::,10g; The second simulation study generates data from the proposed mixture model. We started from setting ldgyw to be 2 for the first 50 genes and 0 for the remaining 950. and generated the latent scores 3 1 from the corresponding priors in the model, bb *N( , ) for 4 16 b [ f1,2,:::,1999g, s{2 *G(5,1), z1 *N(0,1) and a 1 1 zb *N(bb{1 zb{1 , ) for b [ f2,3,:::,2000g, cdgw *N(1, ) for 4 9 1 w *N(0, g [ f1,2,:::,100g and cdg ) for g [ f101,:::,1000g, 400 zbt *N(zb zxt cdgw ) for b [ f1,2,:::,2000g and t [ f1,2,:::,50g, P 4 1 1 b[g zbt zw , bdgy *N( , ) and bdgy *N(0, ), randomly gt mg 5 100 100 with proportions respectively 30 and 70 , ag *N(0,1) for g[f1,2,:::,1000g and zy *N(ag zxt bdgy zldgyw zw ,1) . Once the gt gt latent scores are generated, using (1 and 2), we generate geneLet dg denote an indicator for rejecting the g-th comparison and XG D d denote the number of rejections; it is defined g 1 gG X gFDR(1{dg )dg =DBayesian Models and Integration Genomic Platformsexpression and CNA measurements, setting the hyperparameters as follows: wbz={N N Nyw y rg P(dg 1,dg {1Dwb(g)t ,ygt ) yw y rg P(dg 1,dg 1Dwb(g)t ,ygt ) yw rg P(dg 1Dwb(g)t ,ygt )+2 and n2 b1 ,b [ f1,2,:::,2000g;z={ yg +10 and s2 1, gg [ f1,2,:::,1000g:In both cases roughly 2000 iterations were needed for c.